alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013156EN.01005102.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/51

---

Action brought on 8 April 2013 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — Star (STAR)

(Case T-199/13)

2013/C 156/94

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DTM Ricambi Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: V. Catelli, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Star SpA (Lodi, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 124/2012-1 and grant registration of the Community mark ‘STAR’, filed with No 5878038, in Classes 7, 9 and 12; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 124/2012-1 and grant registration of the Community mark ‘STAR’, filed with No 5878038, in Classes 7, 9 and 12;

| — | order Star to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, including those relating to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Star to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, including those relating to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 12

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Star

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ for goods in Class 39, national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘STAR LODI’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 38, 39 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | No likelihood of confusion |
| --- | --- |

—

No likelihood of confusion

| — | Dilution of the earlier mark |
| --- | --- |

—

Dilution of the earlier mark

---
No. 10-7914.

#### Raymond Mainor, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1191, 131 S. Ct. 1026,

178 L. Ed. 2d 848,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 678.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 10.
302 Certification

Exhibit 31.2


Date: February 11, 2004

           I, Jim Bolokoski, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GiveMePower
Corp. ;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

          (b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238];

          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

                                /s/ Jim Bolokoski
                                    -------------
                                    Jim Bolokoski
                                    Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Fab Industries, Inc.
New York, New York

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed August 11,
1997, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed June 28, 1993, the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed January 31, 1992 and the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 filed June 9, 1989 of our report dated February 16, 1999
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Fab
Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 2, 2000.

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "experts" in the
Prospectus forming a part of such Registration Statements.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP



New York, New York
February 27, 2001
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of BDC Capital, Inc. (the *“Company”* ),
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the *“Report”* ),
      I,
      Richard A. Pomije, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 135)), that
      to
      my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.








Date: January
      16, 2007





/s/
      Richard A.
      Pomije


Richard
      A. Pomije


Chief
      Financial Officer
#### *TJ Landco, LLC, Respondent, v. Harley C. Douglass, Inc., et al., Petitioners,*

No. 91639-0.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Nos. 31992-0-III and 32208-4-III, March 5, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 249. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 6, 2015

NO. 03
- 12
- 00558
- CV

Happy Jack Ranch, Inc. and Frederick J. Behrend, Appellant s

v. HH&L Development, Inc.; Matthew Stolhandske, Trustee; Michael Strnad, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICE PURYEAR AND GOODWIN AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART ON REHEARING
-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on May 22, 2012 . Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in
the district court’s judgment

. We th erefore o rder that the motion for rehearing filed by appellee, Michael Strnad is denied; that the opinion and judgment dated March 27, 2015, are withdrawn;
and that the Court reverses the district court’s award of attorney fees and renders judgment that
Michael Str nad take nothing on his claim for attorney fees

. We affirm the remainder of the judgment. E ach party shall pay the costs of the appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court
and the court below

.
Exhibit 32.02

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
F. Adair, as Chief Financial Officer of Concur, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 6, 2009



By

/s/    John F. AdairJohn F. AdairChief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Concur under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF THE CFO

I, Don T. Scartz, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EMS Technologies, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

            (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
      the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
      of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

            (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting.

 By: /s/  Don T. Scartz                         Date: 3/31/05
     ---------------------------
     Don T. Scartz
     Executive Vice President,
     Chief Financial Officer
RE: Still waiting for final rule and preamble to be uploaded into ROCIS

Laity, James A. 

t

o

:

Lydia Wegman 06/02/2010 07:33 PM

Cc: Tricia Crabtree

No problem, thanks for the update.

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 7:32 PM

To: Laity, James A.

Cc: Tricia Crabtree

Subject: Re: Still waiting for final rule and preamble to be uploaded into ROCIS

It took a long time to get it ready but it should be uploaded in about 5 minutes. Please let me know when you get it. 

I'm sorry fopr the delay. 

 From: "Laity, James A." [James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov]

 Sent: 06/02/2010 07:28 PM AST

 To: Lydia Wegman; Charlotte Bertrand; Bridgid Curry

 Subject: Still waiting for final rule and preamble to be uploaded into ROCIS

Lydia, Looks like final RIA was uploaded over an hour ago, but still no rule and preamble.  Do you know

how much longer it will be?
SUBSIDIARIES OF EMCEE BROADCAST PRODUCTS, INC. (1)
     The following constitute all of the Registrant's subsidiary corporations:
     1. EMCEE Cellular Inc., a Delaware corporation; 
     2. EMCEE Export Sales Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation (this
corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of EMCEE Cellular Inc.);
     3.   R.F. Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (this corporation is a
wholly owned subsidiary of EMCEE Cellular Inc.); 
     4.   R.F. Systems of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation (this corporation
is a wholly owned subsidiary of EMCEE Cellular Inc.);
     5.   Universal Rapid Access, LLC (this limited liability company is a
partially owned subsidiary of R.F. Systems of Nevada, Inc., which owns 50% of
the
outstanding equity of the limited liability company); and
     6.   EMCEE Broadcast Products (Chengdu) Company, Ltd. (the Registrant
owns
25% of the issued and outstanding capital stock of this corporation).

(1) All subsidiaries are wholly owned by the Registrant unless otherwise
indicated.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Torres, Petitioner,*

No. 91835-0.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 31616-5-III, April 9, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1047. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
No. 09-10946.

#### Perry R. Silverman, Petitioner v. Stuart Hudson, Warden.

562 U.S. 1171, 131 S. Ct. 981,

178 L. Ed. 2d 809,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 596.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 856, 131 S. Ct. 123, 178 L. Ed. 2d 75, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6328.
No. 10-11139.

#### Ryan Christopher Lynn, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 869, 132 S. Ct. 220,

181 L. Ed. 2d 121,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6508.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 636 F.3d 1127.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00559-CV

HILL COUNTRY-SAN ANTONIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 

a.k.a. Hill Country Achievement,

Appellant

v.

Rachel TREJO as next friend of Rene Trejo,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-20045

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2014

DISMISSED

On February 12, 2014, this court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order dated 

August 5, 2013. On February 27, 2014, Appellant filed a motion for en banc reconsideration and 

this court requested Appellee file a response to Appellant’s motion. 

On July 22, 2014, Appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Three days later, the Texas Supreme Court granted Appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the petition for review. Appellee did not file a response to the en banc motion.
04-13-00559-CV

On September 23, 2014, we ordered Appellant to clarify whether the July 22, 2014 motion 

to dismiss sought (1) a dismissal of the motion for en banc reconsideration or (2) this court to 

withdraw the court’s opinion dated February 12, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c).

On October 3, 2014, Appellant clarified its request seeking this court withdraw its February 

12, 2014 opinion. Appellee’s subsequent response strongly opposed the withdrawal of the court’s 

opinion.

Appellant’s request to withdraw this court’s February 12, 2014 opinion is denied. 

Appellant’s request to dismiss this appeal is granted and this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
Bryant Blank

3204 Crestwood Ln. Columbia, MO 65203 Email: bjb34b@gmail.com

Section 333 Exemption I would like to seek an exemption for my UAS (DJI Phantom 3) so that I may fly over farms and other parcels of land to take pictures and videos of landowner’s property with their permission and sell them copies of the photograph or videos. Doing so, while still having an awareness of my surroundings and keeping public safety as my number one priority. I have spoken to many landowners in my area who have shown a great interest in getting aerial photographs of their property. This exemption would not affect the safety of others. Every time my UAS would be flown would only be over one property and the entire family or persons living there would be well aware of the actions taking place. Also, the UAS would not be flown much over the limitations already set int o place, keeping the UAS within the distance of sight over the specified property. **In summary** : I am seeking a section 333 exemption so that I may sell photographs and videos to landowners who allow me to fly my UAS over their property while maintaining a s afe and comfortable environment for the public, the landowners, and myself. Again, the UAS would never leave my line of sight and public safety will be the number one priority.

Bryant Blank
No. 10-667.

#### William Miranda-Marin, et al., Petitioners v. Carmen L. Rodriguez-Garcia.

562 U.S. 1180, 131 S. Ct. 1016,

178 L. Ed. 2d 829,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 729.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 610 F.3d 756.